Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 23, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 7 of 19  <br />  <br />3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND <br />LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) <br /> <br />Levang stated that five feet allows for proper drainage and that the issue is to ensure someone has enough <br />land so water can be diverted properly. <br /> <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards noted the proposed ordinance does not prohibit people <br />from putting things in that area but that it requires an administrative permit, which allows Staff to review <br />it. Edwards stated the number one call relates to the roads and that the number two call typically deals <br />with drainage being diverted onto a neighbor’s property. <br /> <br />Walsh stated the Code already addresses that. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the Code does not administer itself and that sometimes it is not possible to approve <br />something without having a plan in front of you to review. <br /> <br />Levang stated it sounds like Staff would like to review a plan to make sure something can be placed <br />within five feet. <br /> <br />Edwards stated a lot of the properties have drainage ways along the property lines and the ordinance <br />would allow Staff to review the drainage. Edwards stated people sometimes innocently will do <br />something in that area resulting in water going into the neighbor’s property. <br /> <br />Walsh stated the ordinance would force people to come in for a permit for something that is very minor. <br /> <br />Edwards stated a raised planter box does not typically create the issues that a retaining wall or a planting <br />bed would. Edwards noted a properly installed fence has some clearance underneath it to allow water to <br />go under it. <br /> <br />Walsh stated a planter box would fall under the same definition as a retaining wall since it is holding the <br />earth back. <br /> <br />McMillan asked whether the language should say right-of-way easement in Item No. 2 rather than the <br />structure is not located within a drainage, utility, or other easement. <br /> <br />Mattick stated in his view that would be covered by the other easement. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she was attempting to figure out the right-of-way piece. McMillan stated on her street <br />the south side has maybe a 15-foot right-of-way and the north side has five feet. McMillan asked if the <br />ordinance would mean that no structure can be on the south side in that 15 feet if the right-of-way varies. <br /> <br />Mattick indicated it would be from the edge of where the right-of-way shows up on paper and necessarily <br />where the road is. Mattick stated everyone usually assumes the road is located in the middle of the right- <br />of-way, which is not always the case. <br /> <br />McMillan stated ten feet from a traveled roadway can be different from where the right-of-way is.